Skip to main content
Glama

Denue

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

While annotations are all false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: rate limit (5 per identifier per day), free/quota-free, claim_token mechanics, daily digest processing, and the instruction to not paste user prompts. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, and every sentence serves a distinct function: usage criteria, exclusion, identification, message guidance, claim_token, roadmap impact, rate limit, and cost. It is appropriately sized for a tool with nuanced routing and token behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what to expect (a claim_token, future status updates), covers all required behavioral guidance, and provides sufficient context for correct invocation. The tool is simple in purpose, and nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the enum, nested context object, and claim_token usage. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning—it restates claim_token behavior already in the schema, but does not provide new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('tell') and resource ('Pipeworx team'), and clearly enumerates what the tool does: report bugs, features, data gaps, or praise. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by focusing on feedback about the tools themselves, not asking questions or doing research.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria (wrong/stale data, missing tool, praise) and an explicit when-not-to-use (tools from a different MCP server) with a named alternative ('file it with that server instead'). Also clarifies how to identify Pipeworx tools, making the usage guidance unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Denue toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with detailed descriptions guiding usage, though some overlap exists between similar query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which could cause confusion for agents not reading carefully.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent verb-noun pattern. Prefixes vary widely (actions like ask, compare, generate vs. domains like denue, polymarket), making the naming scheme inconsistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the count is high for a server named 'Denue', which suggests a narrower focus. While the breadth may be justified by the platform's capabilities, the number feels slightly heavy and could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations, but it is read-only with no write capabilities for external data. Memory and subscription tools add some action, but overall, it is fairly complete for its stated purpose.

Resources